Privy Council Court January 1945 Judgments

Mahbub Shah Vs. Emperor

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1945PC118

Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal by special leave against a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated 14th March 1944, confirming on appeal the conviction of the appellant of the murder of one Allah Dad and the sentence of death passed on him by the Sessions Judge, Mianwali, on 20th December 1943. The appellant Mahbub Shah is aged 19. He has been convicted of murder under S.302, read with S. 34, Penal Code, He was also convicted of the attempted murder of one Hamidullah Khan and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment; but that conviction has not been brought before the Board. The main question raised in this appeal is whether the appellant has been rightly convicted of murder upon the true construction of S.34, Penal Code. Section 34 runs as follows: "When a criminal act it done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone." Along with the appe...

K.B. Mian Feroz Shah Vs. Firm R.S. Hira Singh Attar Singh and Others

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1945PC136

Lord Thankerton: Their Lordships have carefully listened to the grounds argued by counsel for the appellant and have come clearly to the conclusion that no valid leave was granted in this case because the requisite matter of ascertainment of the market value of the subject-matter of the suit and of the appeal had never been properly approached in any sense by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner prior to their granting the order giving leave. The result of that would necessarily have been that the appeal should be dismissed with costs, but, bearing in mind the interests of the parties and the possible saving of expense, their Lordships thought it right to invite Mr. Parikh to open so far on his case so as to give some idea whether there would be any possibility of his succeeding in the alternative method of a petition for special leave to appeal. After having heard Mr. Parikh on the matter, their Lordships are fully satisfied that this is not a case in which there would be any possib...

Governor-general in Council Vs. Province of Madras

Court: Privy Council

Lord Simonds: This appeal is brought by the Governor-General in Council from a decree made by the Federal Court of India in its original jurisdiction on 17th March 1942. In proceedings commenced in that Court against the respondent, the Province of Madras, the appellant claimed that the Madras Act, 9 of 1939, known as the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1989 and hereafter referred to as "the Madras Act," in so far as it purports to levy a tax on first sales in Madras of goods manufactured or produced in India is, except in respect of certain excepted goods, ultra vires and beyond the competence of the Legislature of the respondent. The Federal Court dismissed the appellant's suit following its previous decision in an appeal from the High Court of Madras in a suit in which the present respondents were appellants and a firm called Boddu Paidanna and Sons were respondents and the validity of the same provisions of the same Act was in issue. This case will be referred to as the Boddu Paida...

Doorga Prosad Chamaria Vs. Secretary of State

Court: Privy Council

Reported in: AIR1945PC62

Sir John Beaumont: This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court at Calcutta, in its Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, dated 16th January 1941, by which the decree of the First Subordinate Court of Howrah, dated 31st July, 1936, was set aside. The only question which arises in the appeal is whether a certificate dated 1st April 1933, issued under the provisions of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, is a valid certificate. The appellant in his case claims further that the certificate, if originally valid, became unenforceable by reason of matters which occurred after the filing of the suit; but their Lordships are of opinion that the relief claimed in this suit must be confined to matters existing at the date when the suit was instituted. On 27th February 1933, the appellant was assessed to income-tax and super-tax by the Income-tax Officer, Howrah, under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for the years 1928-29,1929-30 and 1930-31, the assessments bein...

Lyallpur Bank Ltd. Vs. Ramji Das (Deceased) Through His Sons and Other ...

Court: Privy Council

Lord Russell of Klllowen: The points involved in this appeal turn upon the true construction of S. 78 (1), Civil PC. (5 of 1908) which is in the following terms: "Where assets are held by a Court and more persons than one have, before the receipt of such assets, made application to the Court for the execution of decrees for the payment of money passed against the same judgment-debtor and have not obtained, satisfaction thereof, the assets after deducting the costs of realisation, shall be rateably distributed among all such persons," It is common ground that at all material times there was held by the District Court, Unao, assets of one Shanti Lal amounting to a sum of Rs. 49,166 or thereabouts, and that before the receipt of those assets various decree-holders had made applications to the Court for the execution of decrees for the payment of money passed against the said Shanti Lal and had not obtained satisfaction thereof. They accordingly claimed to be entitled to a rateable distrib...